posted by iclfan2So New York has legalized late term abortion (and shitty white women actually cheered the news). Pretty fucked up.
Yes it certainly is. I have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with people that they would cheer about a pyrrhic victory.
I saw it, but can't find how late in the pregnancy the child can be aborted. How far are we talking?
posted by like_thatI saw it, but can't find how late in the pregnancy the child can be aborted. How far are we talking?
Without looking I bet its late enough to be a viable baby. Bunch of sickos.
Sick
posted by SpockWithout looking I bet its late enough to be a viable baby. Bunch of sickos.
From what I understand, it is. It's effectively up to birth. Until the baby's out of the birth canal, it's apparently fair game.
Look, I get if a person has reasons for believing what they believe about abortion and whether or not it should be legal at what point.
But cheering about it is still fucked up.
Reminds me of Brad Pitt's character in The Big Short. "Just don't fucking dance."
posted by SpockWithout looking I bet its late enough to be a viable baby. Bunch of sickos.
A viable baby? Lol
posted by O-TrapFrom what I understand, it is. It's effectively up to birth. Until the baby's out of the birth canal, it's apparently fair game.
Look, I get if a person has reasons for believing what they believe about abortion and whether or not it should be legal at what point.
But cheering about it is still fucked up.
Reminds me of Brad Pitt's character in The Big Short. "Just don't fucking dance."
It’s also one thing to abort an unwanted baby at 10 weeks or whatever (different discussion), but babies survive at 21 weeks now. So if there is a complication at 30, why wouldn’t you try to save the baby rather than murdering it? And if it’s unwanted, why did you wait until 30 weeks? It’s pretty sick to clap about, but really odd to want to do anyway after 26 weeks.
I looked into it, decent article from Syracuse.com
What would change under the new law Under the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, exceptions for an abortion after 24 weeks can be made when a woman's life or health is at risk. But the existing New York law makes exceptions only when a woman's life is at risk. The Reproductive Health Act changes New York's law to permit abortions after 24 weeks in case where a woman's life or health would be threatened by continuing the pregnancy. Allowing abortions when a fetus is not viable New York's 1970 law gave women the right to an abortion if a fetus is not viable during the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy. Under the Reproductive Health Act, a woman will have the right to abortion at any time, including the third trimester, if the fetus is not viable and cannot survive outside the womb.
Sounds like it is only in cases where the women's health is in danger or if the fetus will not survive outside the womb.
I don't see the problem with this, then again, I'm a dude and don't really think I have a strong opinion of the issue. I also know the health of the woman is a real issue now a days given the number of women that have died in childbirth has increased.
posted by O-TrapFrom what I understand, it is. It's effectively up to birth. Until the baby's out of the birth canal, it's apparently fair game.
Look, I get if a person has reasons for believing what they believe about abortion and whether or not it should be legal at what point.
But cheering about it is still fucked up.
Reminds me of Brad Pitt's character in The Big Short. "Just don't fucking dance."
I am not one to advocate for the Government to make laws that prevent people from making decisions like this, but personally I find it sickening. The infatuation in this country over abortions is odd to say the least, and I can't comprehend why people would openly be celebrating it.
posted by SportsAndLadyA viable baby? Lol
Babies are born early at 7 months and survive all the time. I would consider that a "viable" baby. Also, with further improving technology, there are devices that are starting to save babies that are born even more prematurely.
posted by iclfan2It’s also one thing to abort an unwanted baby at 10 weeks or whatever (different discussion), but babies survive at 21 weeks now. So if there is a complication at 30, why wouldn’t you try to save the baby rather than murdering it? And if it’s unwanted, why did you wait until 30 weeks? It’s pretty sick to clap about, but really odd to want to do anyway after 26 weeks.
Agreed.
I guess my point was this: You can have your belief on the matter, regardless of what it is. We all have a right to our convictions.
But there's a difference between what I should be ALLOWED to do and what I should want to do. I see this similarly to when Ohio passed castle doctrine laws. I should absolutely have the right to protect my house with lethal force, if necessary. But I shouldn't WANT to ever be in the position to do so.
Deserving or not, citizen with rights or not, taking a life should be more sobering than we treat it when we play politics with it.
posted by ptown_trojans_1I looked into it, decent article from Syracuse.com
Sounds like it is only in cases where the women's health is in danger or if the fetus will not survive outside the womb.
I don't see the problem with this, then again, I'm a dude and don't really think I have a strong opinion of the issue. I also know the health of the woman is a real issue now a days given the number of women that have died in childbirth has increased.
Do they have outlines as to what it means for a woman's health to be in danger? My wife's health was in danger when we had our daughter, but the risk was low (well under 10%).
I don't mean to ask as though you're expected to be the resident expert on the law, but you've seemingly seen more about it than I have.
posted by like_thatI am not one to advocate for the Government to make laws that prevent people from making decisions like this, but personally I find it sickening. The infatuation in this country over abortions is odd to say the least, and I can't comprehend why people would openly be celebrating it.
I'm in this camp. I am not of the view that the government should force one person to subject their body to another human's use against their will, but can we stop celebrating it and focusing on it? Can we show just a little sobriety that it even happens often enough to be worth a national story?
posted by like_thatI am not one to advocate for the Government to make laws that prevent people from making decisions like this, but personally I find it sickening. The infatuation in this country over abortions is odd to say the least, and I can't comprehend why people would openly be celebrating it.
posted by SportsAndLadyA viable baby? Lol
Babies are born early at 7 months and survive all the time. I would consider that a "viable" baby. Also, with further improving technology, there are devices that are started to save babies that are born even more prematurely.
“Viable baby” was just an odd way to phrase that
A baby that is (allowed to be) born and is say, 2 months old, requires as much or more care as a baby that is 2 months from term/birth. Just because the baby has yet to pass through the birth canal does not make it less a baby/human. Without care, a 2 month old baby is no more viable than a fetus at 2 months.
Not too many women will agree with me, especially since I don't consider myself to be a "feminist" (most particularly this fucked up 3rd wave type).
But I truly think men should have more of a say so. And by men, I mean in general husbands, boyfriends, one-nighters. To clarify further, this does not include victims of rape and molestation - which I know there would be howls of protestations if I didn't clarify and classify ad nauseum. So, without further ado...
Yes, men should have more of a say so. For some generations now men have been conditioned, starting with boys in school, to accept and oblige the idea that this is their lot in life. (there might be a little bit of lazy escape-routing involved too) I have never bought into the idea that women should be allowed to enjoy all the perks of decision making excluding men in one of the most important and difficult decisions that people will make in their lives. I find this idea to be absurd.
"I'm keeping this baby and you have no say in it. Now give me part of your paycheck for the next 18 years."
"I'm not keeping this baby. What you want is of no consequence."
It's really baffling to me why so many men are just accepting of the pittances their given when it comes to decision making. Their bodies also have a part in this too. Women just don't spontaneously reproduce.
We should stop pretending that women's bodies are the only ones involved.
We should stop pretending that women's feelings are the only ones that matter.
posted by QuakerOats
A baby that is (allowed to be) born and is say, 2 months old, requires as much or more care as a baby that is 2 months from term/birth. Just because the baby has yet to pass through the birth canal does not make it less a baby/human. Without care, a 2 month old baby is no more viable than a fetus at 2 months.
Not a good example. A 2 month old fetus is 100% not viable outside the womb.
You may be missing the point. The idea that you can kill a child merely because it has yet to naturally slide out the birth canal, and do so because it was not ‘viable’ until it was ‘born’, is barbaric.
posted by CenterBHSFanNot too many women will agree with me, especially since I don't consider myself to be a "feminist" (most particularly this fucked up 3rd wave type).
But I truly think men should have more of a say so. And by men, I mean in general husbands, boyfriends, one-nighters. To clarify further, this does not include victims of rape and molestation - which I know there would be howls of protestations if I didn't clarify and classify ad nauseum. So, without further ado...
Yes, men should have more of a say so. For some generations now men have been conditioned, starting with boys in school, to accept and oblige the idea that this is their lot in life. (there might be a little bit of lazy escape-routing involved too) I have never bought into the idea that women should be allowed to enjoy all the perks of decision making excluding men in one of the most important and difficult decisions that people will make in their lives. I find this idea to be absurd.
"I'm keeping this baby and you have no say in it. Now give me part of your paycheck for the next 18 years."
"I'm not keeping this baby. What you want is of no consequence."It's really baffling to me why so many men are just accepting of the pittances their given when it comes to decision making. Their bodies also have a part in this too. Women just don't spontaneously reproduce.
We should stop pretending that women's bodies are the only ones involved.
We should stop pretending that women's feelings are the only ones that matter.
The irony in this is the women (and men) who preach that men are not allowed to have an opinion on women's issues (abortion, mythical pay gap, maternity leave, etc) are also the same people who lecture men on "toxic masculinity" and did cart wheels to the Gillette commercial.
posted by CenterBHSFanWe should stop pretending that women's bodies are the only ones involved.
We should stop pretending that women's feelings are the only ones that matter.
I would say that a preponderance of women are not pretending......
I don't know if pro-choice rhetoric still includes "Safe, legal and rare" (or something close to it. To me, that expression has always been the crux of the issue as to why the pro-choice argument it fatally flawed. If abortion is not morally reprehensible, why should it be "rare". If someone sees an abortion as comparable to an appendectomy, what difference does it make how often it happens. The "rare" part of that argument makes absolutely no sense in the context of the pro-choice view. To me, it is a blatant admission that abortion is wrong.
The psychosis is real.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI don't know if pro-choice rhetoric still includes "Safe, legal and rare" (or something close to it. To me, that expression has always been the crux of the issue as to why the pro-choice argument it fatally flawed. If abortion is not morally reprehensible, why should it be "rare". If someone sees an abortion as comparable to an appendectomy, what difference does it make how often it happens. The "rare" part of that argument makes absolutely no sense in the context of the pro-choice view. To me, it is a blatant admission that abortion is wrong.
I haven't heard it in some time, so I don't think it is, but that does sort of point out the corrupted foundation of the movement, doesn't it?
Didn't know which thread to drop this in, but it really does satire progressive ideology beautifully:
https://spectator.us/smirking-facial-expression-far-right/
The actions and rhetoric of the dem leaders and their freshmen class are tantamount to overturning our basic foundations. Add to that the radical left dominating media, academia, and the administrative state; how much longer before we fall from within, particularly given the economic and historical ignorance of the millennial set?
posted by QuakerOatsThe actions and rhetoric of the dem leaders and their freshmen class are tantamount to overturning our basic foundations. Add to that the radical left dominating media, academia, and the administrative state; how much longer before we fall from within, particularly given the economic and historical ignorance of the millennial set?
Ummm, spending & appropriation is the responsibility of Congress, not the POTUS. I really don't see how Trump has any justification for shutting down the govt because he doesn't like the budget passed by Congress.
Also harder to pin this on Democrats. The Republicans couldn't get their shit together to pass a bill to send to the House. Pelosi, meanwhile, pushed thru two bills to send to the Senate.
So you and Trump's grand masterplan to point fingers at Dems for not passing the bill sent by the Senate....kind of turned the tables on ya.
At this point, I put more of this on McConnell than anyone else. He is coming off like Harry Ried
posted by Devils AdvocateAt this point, I put more of this on McConnell than anyone else. He is coming off like Harry Ried
They screwed up. They lost the high ground the moment they failed to send their own bill to the House.
Eventually, TSA is going to walk-off the job en masse....and then there will be holy hell to pay. How long would you continue to go into work without getting paid? Yes, they will ultimately receive back pay, however if Washington isn't moving then the only option you have to exercise is to shut the country down and FORCE Washington to act.